CIT v Loknete Balasaheb Desai S.S.K. Ltd. (Bombay HC)- ITAT was justified in holding that in respect of unsold sugar lying in stock, central excise liability was not incurred and consequently the addition of excise duty made by the assessing officer to the value of the excisable goods was liable to be deleted.
CIT v Dynamic Vertical Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi HC) – Is disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non deduction of tax at source attracted in respect of payment for purchase of software from a non-resident, by treating the same as royalty in case where the purchase is for subsequent resale in the Indian market?
Madras High Court has stayed the Registration of Lawyers For Service Tax. The Court has passed an order of interim injunction dated 24.06.2011 restraining the Ministry of Finance from compelling the members of the Petitioner from registering themselves with the service tax authorities and collecting service-tax from them until further orders in response to writ petition filed by The Revenue Bar Association, Madras.
CIT v Volpak Securities Ltd. (Gujrat High Court)- With respect to the portion of penalty, which the CIT [A] confirmed, the same was deleted by the Tribunal observing that the assessee was liable to make payment of Rs. 1,53,000/ on 23rd June 1997 in respect of mark-to-market settlement for which purpose Rs. 1,50,000/ was accepted from Shri Ashok Patel, Director in cash. However, since some funds were available in the books on that date, only Rs. 75,000/ was deposited in the Bank on 23rd June 1997 and the balance, after meeting certain other payments, was returned to the Director.
Stewart Holl (India) Ltd. Vs CIT (High Court of Calcutta)- Court held that the different brands of tea which were mixed by the assessee in Nilgiri’s case for the purpose of producing a tea mixture of a different kind and quality according to the formula evolved by them, there was plainly and indubitably processing of different brands of tea, because these brands of tea experienced, as a result of mixing, qualitative change, in that the tea mixture which came into existence was of different quality and flavour than the different brands of tea which went into the mixture.
Added In Income Tax Case Laws CIT v Heera Construction Co Pvt Ltd (High Court of Kerala) – In view of the application of the 2nd proviso, the assessee is not entitled to complete immunity from payment of penalty on the undisclosed income returned by them under clause (a) of section 158BC, not only because of their failure to comply with the provisions of clauses (i) to (iv) of the 1st proviso but by virtue of the addition made in the assessment of substantial amount of undisclosed income by which the assessee forfeits the benefit of the 1st proviso in regard to immunity from penalty on the tax payable on undisclosed income returned.
Titanor Components Ltd Vs ACIT, Panaji -(High Court of Bombay at Goa) – The power conferred by Section 147 does not provide a fresh opportunity to the AO to correct an incorrect assessment made earlier unless the mistake in the assessment so made is the result of a failure of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. Indeed, where the assessee has fully disclosed all the material facts, it is not open for the AO to re-open the assessment on the ground that there is a mistake in assessment. Moreover, it is necessary for the AO to first observe whether there is a failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and having observed that there is such a failure to proceed under Section 147. It must follow that where the AO does not record such a failure he would not be entitled to proceed under Section 147.
CIT v Gujarat Safai Kamdar Vikas Nigam (High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad) – It was a scheme envisaged for implementation of certain Government programmes in particular, to uplift the living condition of manual scavengers and other Safai Kamdars involved in similar activities. Though exact words may not have been used that the funds made available are directed to form the corpus of the Corporation and to be used for such purpose, the entire purport of the scheme has to be gathered from the reading of the scheme as a whole. If so done, it leaves no doubt in our mind that the funds were made available to the Corporation for implementing the scheme in a particular manner. The assessee Corporation was not th sole trustee. The Scheduled Caste Development Board was also liable for implementation of the scheme to be supervised by a Committee headed by the Deputy Minister which included other Government officials. To our mind, the Tribunal committed no error in holding that the grant in question fulfills the requirement of section 11(d)(1) read with section 12(1) of the Act. In the result, tax appeal is dismissed.
CIT Vs H.P. Marketing Board (Himachal High Court)- Marketing board is not a local authority within the meaning of section 10(20) prior to the amendment made in section 10(20) when the word `local authority’ was not defined in the Income tax Act and the definition of `local authority’ as defined in section 3(31) of the General Clause Act was applicable.
Bela Juneja v CIT (Delhi High Court) – Additions under s 69 was justified since finding of facts has been arrived by lower authorities that assessee had made unexplained investment and there was huge difference between agreed price for purchase of property and price registered in sale deed and no perversity has been shown in such findings. Coming to the material available on record, enough evidence was found by the lower authorities pertaining to assessee from the premises in which she was living that the above payment in respect of property was made by her. The same has neither been accounted for nor assessee has given any satisfactory reply about the investment in question.
